Stanford football: On Shaw’s play-calling before the big miss

Critics of David Shaw‘s conservative play-calling down the stretch in the Fiesta Bowl can make a reasonable case that he should have had Andrew Luck throw to the end zone rather than leaving it up to freshman kicker Jordan Williamson to win the game.

As the sequence was unfolding, though, I had no problem with Shaw’s strategy. I wonder how many of the critics who are blasting Shaw now were knocking him as the sequence unfolded. Of course, hindsight is even better than 20-20.

Here’s what happened: With 52 seconds left and the score 38-38, Stanford had a first down at the Oklahoma State 25 following a Cowboys timeout. The Cardinal had all three of their timeouts left. Rather than throw for the endzone, Shaw had Stepfan Taylor run twice, for six and two yards, to set up what he thought was a chipshot 35-yard field goal. As the football world knows, the kick sailed wide left. So did Williamson’s overtime try, before the Cowboys nailed the winning kick.

When I talked to Shaw on Tuesday morning, he said he didn’t regret his approach in the late fourth quarter at all. Here’s how he saw it: “On one side, you’ve got the best quarterback in America. On the other, you’ve got the best turnover-taking team in the country. They had already caused two turnovers (the pick off Luck and the fumble by Geoff Meinken). The entire time before the game Jordan was nailing 50-yarders. That was the right decision.’’

He didn’t mention that Luck had already been sacked twice. He did say that the absence of red-zone menace Coby Fleener (10 TD catches) because of an injury had nothing to do with his decision to play it safe.

Shaw’s explanation sounds reasonable to me, although, with the benefit of 24 hours to think about it, I would have liked to see Stanford go to a spread formation and run either a quarterback draw or a straightford run by Luck. But I had no problem with giving the ball to Taylor, who had rushed for 180 yards in a magnificent game.

Some of our readers begged to differ. Here’s a small sampling of their comments.

— “Would have tried an over-the-top pass or a strong run or two. The kicker needed a shorter try. Too young, too much pressure. The clock went from 42 seconds down to 3 without an effort to get closer.” (Comment: They did try two runs.)

— “I have seen this from time to time — the offensive version of the prevent defense. … There was about a 1 percent chance that Stanford would cough it up. But no, they let the clock run down and leave it up to a freshman to hit a 40-plus-yarder (Comment: a 35-yarder). He may not have missed in the red zone all year, but he never faced the pressure of the last play of a BCS bowl. Coach lost this game being overly conservative — as most coaches are.”

— “On the last drive in regulation time Coach Shaw went in the toilet. … When it was 1st-and-10 … he had two options: A) Get better field position and go for the field goal, putting the entire game, season and careers of the players on the foot of a freshman or B) Give the best quarterback in the nation a chance to win the game. He obviously chose option A. Unbelievable. What was he thinking? Mr. Williamson did not deserve to be put into that position. Again, if I was the AD, Mr. Shaw would be told to clean out his former office and say goodbye.” (Comment: The college careers of the players were ruined by losing a game? Should they hang up the cleats and join the Stanford Band?”

Referring to an earlier sequence, one reader opined:

“When OSU was driving in what became its last TD, it was obvious to viewers and the game announcers that the Stanford defense was very tired and needed a break. David Shaw should have used a TO to give the defense a brief rest and perhaps break OSU momentum. Perhaps OSU would have been held to a FG. A clear coaching error.” (Comment: I didn’t ask Shaw about this, but he probably wanted to save his timeouts for the end, and the Cowboys were rolling at that point. A timeout probably would have just delayed the inevitable.)

As for the overtime:

— “Tom, why is it you did not question or bring up what, to me, was poor play-calling in the overtime by Shaw? He has the best passer in college football and he calls two running plays before the kicker missed, again!!” (Comment: The Cardinal passed on third down, but Ty Montgomery was stopped after a three-yard gain by Markelle Martin in a nice play.)

— “They call two runs up the middle, at a time when Oklahoma State had been stopping the running game!! I do not get it.” (Comment: They had stopped the running game so emphatically that Stanford had 241 yards on the ground at that point.)

Just to show how somebody can completely lose perspective, here are two e-mails from the same person:

“The Oakies scored 41 points — blame that on the kicker. And you’re wrong: Luck blew it in just about every way possible. How can you call him brilliant? He lost the game!” (Comment: I hope I’m never a defendant when you’re on jury duty.)

and

“Honestly, what really bothers me is that both you and (sports editor Al) Saracevic demonize (Williamson). If the rest of the team, including Luck, and the entire coaching staff, had really excelled, the game would not have come down to a rookie’s prayer. That you, and the Chronicle, felt it advantageous to flaunt the name and image of the poor schlub who didn’t have a chance borders on bullying. Deifying Luck, who couldn’t beat Oregon, didn’t earn the Heisman, couldn’t even win the ‘compromise’ bowl, sounds like some kind of nefarious plot. … The Chronicle’s editorial slant on this story will only cause that kid to bury his head deeper. I’d appreciate a little more empathy and a little less blame-calling.” (Comment: Try reading our stories again, but this time turn the lights on.)